Monday, April 05, 2010


'Nothing to anyone'

This makes two Easter Mondays in a row I've woken up with an emotional hangover -- and yesterday, after starting with a positive bang, went downhill fast.

Nothing, except for church itself, failed to suck. And it still sucks, and that sucks.

Not quite the "terror and amazement" Mary, Mary and Salome felt. But something has seized me, and I don't feel like saying anything to anyone, and I might, I guess, be a little afraid.

8 So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (Mark 16:8, New King James Version)


"But something has seized me, and I dont feel like saying anything to anyone, and I might, I guess, be a little afraid."

First: welcome back.
Second: the Okies name from last year was Wiley Post
Third: I had a great Easter as I was digging fossils out of a site just behind a football stadium in a town aptly named Fossil,Oregon.
Yes it was 47 degrees with a wind chill, but was good.
Forth: as per your quote, change is hard. Especially when it is your core in change. Metamorphis, whether actual or metaphorical rips apart one being to create the next. Welcome to the world of flight mothman.
Traditionally, the Sunday after Easter is called "Low Sunday" for precisely this reason. It's kind of like this old Dennis the Menace cartoon I remember from my childhood. It's Christmas morning and Dennis is sitting in the midst of all his presents, their discarded wrappings, and says to his parents, "Well, that was fun. What big deal comes next?"

There is always a bit of a let-down as we get over an emotional high. My guess is the original surviving disciples felt a bit of the same in the aftermath of their own encounters with the risen Jesus.

It affirms our own humanity and limitedness.
A big part of it is I let myself get my hopes up that Dr ER would feel well enough to go to church with me, and she couldn't, and to have an Eastery day in general with, supper of lamb, at my own hand, etc., but she couldn't. And I am goddamn strong about it all for the most part, but yesterday just killed me because I got my hopes up.
Sorry to hear your anguish, Er.

If you would indulge me, I have a question that's off topic... but then again, maybe not.

I notice you have a book listed in your "what I'm reading" section of your sidebar-- Barbara Thiering's "Jesus the Man: Decoding the Real Story of Jesus and Mary Magdalene".

Considering the topic of this book, do you subscribe to her contentions that, quote, "Jesus was the leader of a radical faction of Essene priests. He was not of virgin birth. He did not die on the Cross. He married Mary Magdalene, fathered a family, and later divorced. He died sometime after AD 64."

Are you reading this for perspective, or do you too subscribe to Ms Thiering's assertions about Jesus? I ask this because if he did not die on the cross, then he was not resurrected on Easter morning. If he was not virgin born, how was he then capable of paying for anyone's sin? Or is it your belief he DIDN'T pay for our sins?

What's the point in going to church if Christ is not who the Bible says he is. Paul's statement, then-- for you --takes on new meaning, and it's a wonder Easter Sunday didn't suck as well...

'But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.' --1 Corinthians 15:13-17

I obviously don't understand your motive for reading this book so...

Not trying to be contentious, just trying to understand.
Hey Preach, afraid? You're human. If you weren''d be cocky, and then false.

Read my Easter post, you will be an excellent apostle to the Gentiles...even me.
Howdy, EL.

Actually, I accidentally ordered that book when I was ordering the buttload of books I had to have for this semester, and only yesterday realized it! (I also orderded to copies of the same book, in the rush.) Yesterday, i was wondering when we would get to that one in the class I thought I was ordering it for, so looked at the syllabus again and -- it's not listed! So, I haven't started it, let alone read it, and all I know about it is what you've written here, and I just looked and I can't even find it at the moment in the mess that is my kitchen table!

In short, no one credible doubts that Jesus existed and was crucified, and I believe he was; Christianity has always debated the exact nature of the Resurrection, including me, but I believe that there was a Resurrection of Christ; I personally don't adhere to the notion of penal substitution, or any of the other "blood"-oriented interpretations of the nuts and bolts of Atonement, but I believe in Atonement as an essential; I also see resurrection as something very different than resuscitation, and agree with St. Paul, 1., that flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom and so, 2., further agree with him in his description of it as similar to what happens to a seed when it's planted -- that is, it is restored in New Life, and is something different, although it carries the same essence, but the seed, and the mortal body as it previously existed, is toast.

But I'll read the book, if I can find it, to see whst the author has to say.
Clark: I'll check it out.
Oh, on the virgin birth: The New testament used by the King James translators relied on a Greek, and faulty version that mistranslated Isaiah to refer to a virgin when he actually referred to a "young woman." I have no problem, personally, with the notion that Jesus's divinity was "real" with or without his mother's virginitt. That's mixing up biology, which is part of ther creation, with God, the creator.
ER I think you will find Barbara Thiering's use of Pesher to read the story within the story a radical departure from what you are used to.
As you can tell from EL's concern it is "disturbing" to many.

Thiering, given her insights, can not be dismissed out of hand but her thesis of what the Gospel are really, is way off the main stream belief and understanding.

I've read the book. If you want to discuss it let me know. I won't defend it but dang it is intriguing.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?